Isn't Mars supposed to be bigger?

Just got a new scope, it's an Orion Skyview Pro 8. I have a 10mm, 25mm and
32mm plossel eyepieces and a 2x Barlow.
Only used the scope twice so far. First night wasen't the best viewing
conditions and I was just playing around looking at starts. They did'nt look
any different in the scope then with the naked eye.

Tonight the viewing conditions and my location were a bit better and I had a
clear view of mars. A nice dot in the sky. Under the telescope it took on
the form of a very very small circle, only slightly bigger than viewing it
with the naked eye. No matter which eyepiece I used or even with the barlow
it still was a very small circle, appeared to be about 2mm across at most.
The eyepieces don't seem to make it much bigger, even the 10mm eyepiece. It
just narrows my field of view.
I read somewhere that with 70x binoculors that Mars would appear the size of
the full moon. I haven't tried using binos but my scope is certainly at a
magnification much higher than that. And with an 8" mirror I thought for
sure the planet would have appeared much much larger.

Is there something wrong with my scope or is that how it appears to all of
you who have viewed Mars recently?

I just got the same exact scope. Fun to move, isn't it?

You are magnifying 200x with the 10mm and the barlow.
It appears as it does, I suppose it is small. Professionals say you
should train your brain and eyes for a few months before you can
expect the best results. Your calculation is correct, but the
distortion is greater observing Mars.

Personally, it is so bright all I can see is the now quite modest
southern polar cap, and I am getting glare lines off of the disk, akin
to a Hubble close up of a star. I think I will be happier in a few
weeks when I may lose a arcsecond or two off of the disk, but the damn
thing will dim back to where it is not washed out. I catched the
impression of a continent like dark patch earlier just above, or now
below, the cap, but it was quite hard to perceive. Now, it is rotated
away and I have better things to look at.

Folks here were talking about how the Moon is deceptive, that you
think it is bigger in the sky than it really is. Sometimes near the
horizen you get distortion that creates that effect too. Basically,
someone said to hold a dime at arm's length to get a good
approximation. Sad to think this is the best Mars can get.

Saturn comes up soon to the east in Gemini I believe, you could target
that for something more satisfying tonight. I am getting the distinct
impression a lot of the Mars hype is justified, but a lot of it is
also folks making a buck.

- Livingston


On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 06:15:01 GMT, "Muff" wrote:

Just got a new scope, it's an Orion Skyview Pro 8. I have a 10mm, 25mm and
32mm plossel eyepieces and a 2x Barlow.
Only used the scope twice so far. First night wasen't the best viewing
conditions and I was just playing around looking at starts. They did'nt look
any different in the scope then with the naked eye.

Tonight the viewing conditions and my location were a bit better and I had a
clear view of mars. A nice dot in the sky. Under the telescope it took on
the form of a very very small circle, only slightly bigger than viewing it
with the naked eye. No matter which eyepiece I used or even with the barlow
it still was a very small circle, appeared to be about 2mm across at most.
The eyepieces don't seem to make it much bigger, even the 10mm eyepiece. It
just narrows my field of view.
I read somewhere that with 70x binoculors that Mars would appear the size of
the full moon. I haven't tried using binos but my scope is certainly at a
magnification much higher than that. And with an 8" mirror I thought for
sure the planet would have appeared much much larger.

Is there something wrong with my scope or is that how it appears to all of
you who have viewed Mars recently?

You're not alone! I have about the same setup, and I'm looking at a
slightly orange dot just slightly bigger than what it appears to the naked
eye. I'm starting to wounder if I'm getting my $$$ worth. However, the new
found interest has helped me become educated in the universe around us.
I've learned that the Earth isn't in the center.

Saturn was a fasinating view. I could see a dot with a tight ring around
it. The world isn't black and white, but I'm starting to believe the
universe may be.



D-

"Livingston" wrote in message
...
I just got the same exact scope. Fun to move, isn't it?

You are magnifying 200x with the 10mm and the barlow.
It appears as it does, I suppose it is small. Professionals say you
should train your brain and eyes for a few months before you can
expect the best results. Your calculation is correct, but the
distortion is greater observing Mars.

Personally, it is so bright all I can see is the now quite modest
southern polar cap, and I am getting glare lines off of the disk, akin
to a Hubble close up of a star. I think I will be happier in a few
weeks when I may lose a arcsecond or two off of the disk, but the damn
thing will dim back to where it is not washed out. I catched the
impression of a continent like dark patch earlier just above, or now
below, the cap, but it was quite hard to perceive. Now, it is rotated
away and I have better things to look at.

Folks here were talking about how the Moon is deceptive, that you
think it is bigger in the sky than it really is. Sometimes near the
horizen you get distortion that creates that effect too. Basically,
someone said to hold a dime at arm's length to get a good
approximation. Sad to think this is the best Mars can get.

Saturn comes up soon to the east in Gemini I believe, you could target
that for something more satisfying tonight. I am getting the distinct
impression a lot of the Mars hype is justified, but a lot of it is
also folks making a buck.

- Livingston


On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 06:15:01 GMT, "Muff" wrote:

Just got a new scope, it's an Orion Skyview Pro 8. I have a 10mm, 25mm
and
32mm plossel eyepieces and a 2x Barlow.
Only used the scope twice so far. First night wasen't the best viewing
conditions and I was just playing around looking at starts. They did'nt
look
any different in the scope then with the naked eye.

Tonight the viewing conditions and my location were a bit better and I
had a
clear view of mars. A nice dot in the sky. Under the telescope it took on
the form of a very very small circle, only slightly bigger than viewing
it
with the naked eye. No matter which eyepiece I used or even with the
barlow
it still was a very small circle, appeared to be about 2mm across at
most.
The eyepieces don't seem to make it much bigger, even the 10mm eyepiece.
It
just narrows my field of view.
I read somewhere that with 70x binoculors that Mars would appear the size
of
the full moon. I haven't tried using binos but my scope is certainly at a
magnification much higher than that. And with an 8" mirror I thought for
sure the planet would have appeared much much larger.

Is there something wrong with my scope or is that how it appears to all
of
you who have viewed Mars recently?

Don't get me wrong, I have really enjoyed the past three months of
observing and have observed plenty of detail. The darn thing is just
too bright right now. Give it a chance in about two or three weeks and
I think you will find it more accessible to the eye. I could sense it
was brightening too much for my comfort about two weeks ago.
If you have the proper filters to dim the disc, bless you. I just
spent $850 and I am not spending one more dime. Practice is the key,
train the brain and the eyes. I detected the polar cap when the disc
was 12" and dark features when the disc was 14". They say with a good
scope and a trained eye you can spot dark features at 9". We'll see if
I can do so soon enough, albeit it should fade a tad slower than it
approached. I like my 70mm refractor, it performs well enough.

Saturn looks good even though it is just reemerging from behind the
sun. I await opposition with baited breath. Jupiter should reemerge
soon too.

I really had a good night the other night. Saturn was low in the sky
so I could not tease out the Cassini Division, but it still looked
interesting. The Orion Nebula reminded me of a caped shadow,
a hooded dark shade with his cape flowing up behind and above his
head.

Any one interested in spotting Uranus should try now too, it is
relatively bright and easy to locate in Aquarius near Mars. Near being
a relative term, it always surprises me how close objects appear on a
chart and how spaced they are above my head. The next night I go out,
I am going for Uranus. I have tried on three previous occasions, and
am sure I have seen it without knowing it. I want to use the new scope
after locating it with binoculars to see if I can detect a disc, I
think I should be able to.

The magic for me is in seeing it all live, with my eye, these photons
that have traveled quite a journey just to go 'smack' on my retina.
The sky is my Fortress of Solitude, my place of being at one with the
Universe. Mars is tiny... I wish that all the headlines contained a
disclaimer to keeps people's expectations low: "Yes, this is a really
exceptional opposition, but Mars is still as tiny as a flea's butt!"
Well, not that tiny... Heck, the planet is only twice the size of the
moon placed 150 times farther away. Proper expectations should be
prominently encouraged, not added as an afternote after lots of hype.

I am trying to share this Mars opposition with my father, but since he
did not practice as the planet approached he has a tough time even
detecting the polar cap. Now that the cap has shrunk, he barely sees
it at all. I have little hope he will detect dark features. Perhaps he
can get the required practice now through September. Of course, I also
have to keep his magnification down due to floaters, any magnification
over 140x bothers him. I personally got my best views when the disc
was about 20", around July 20th or so.

I think my father will enjoy the Mars landers and the Cassini probe
far more than this pursuit. Of course, we have two naked eye comets
this spring and I am hyping that up to him so he does not lose
interest 'cause of the Great Red Speck.

- Livingston

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 23:25:31 -0500, "Darrell"
wrote:

You're not alone! I have about the same setup, and I'm looking at a
slightly orange dot just slightly bigger than what it appears to the naked
eye. I'm starting to wounder if I'm getting my $$$ worth. However, the new
found interest has helped me become educated in the universe around us.
I've learned that the Earth isn't in the center.

Saturn was a fasinating view. I could see a dot with a tight ring around
it. The world isn't black and white, but I'm starting to believe the
universe may be.



D-

"Livingston" wrote in message
. ..
I just got the same exact scope. Fun to move, isn't it?

You are magnifying 200x with the 10mm and the barlow.
It appears as it does, I suppose it is small. Professionals say you
should train your brain and eyes for a few months before you can
expect the best results. Your calculation is correct, but the
distortion is greater observing Mars.

Personally, it is so bright all I can see is the now quite modest
southern polar cap, and I am getting glare lines off of the disk, akin
to a Hubble close up of a star. I think I will be happier in a few
weeks when I may lose a arcsecond or two off of the disk, but the damn
thing will dim back to where it is not washed out. I catched the
impression of a continent like dark patch earlier just above, or now
below, the cap, but it was quite hard to perceive. Now, it is rotated
away and I have better things to look at.

Folks here were talking about how the Moon is deceptive, that you
think it is bigger in the sky than it really is. Sometimes near the
horizen you get distortion that creates that effect too. Basically,
someone said to hold a dime at arm's length to get a good
approximation. Sad to think this is the best Mars can get.

Saturn comes up soon to the east in Gemini I believe, you could target
that for something more satisfying tonight. I am getting the distinct
impression a lot of the Mars hype is justified, but a lot of it is
also folks making a buck.

- Livingston


On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 06:15:01 GMT, "Muff" wrote:

Just got a new scope, it's an Orion Skyview Pro 8. I have a 10mm, 25mm
and
32mm plossel eyepieces and a 2x Barlow.
Only used the scope twice so far. First night wasen't the best viewing
conditions and I was just playing around looking at starts. They did'nt
look
any different in the scope then with the naked eye.

Tonight the viewing conditions and my location were a bit better and I
had a
clear view of mars. A nice dot in the sky. Under the telescope it took on
the form of a very very small circle, only slightly bigger than viewing
it
with the naked eye. No matter which eyepiece I used or even with the
barlow
it still was a very small circle, appeared to be about 2mm across at
most.
The eyepieces don't seem to make it much bigger, even the 10mm eyepiece.
It
just narrows my field of view.
I read somewhere that with 70x binoculors that Mars would appear the size
of
the full moon. I haven't tried using binos but my scope is certainly at a
magnification much higher than that. And with an 8" mirror I thought for
sure the planet would have appeared much much larger.

Is there something wrong with my scope or is that how it appears to all
of
you who have viewed Mars recently?

Livingston. You bring up a very interesting point. The intensity of
light diminishes by the square of the distance,and I always thought I
knew size does to. However I'm having problems with my thinking on this.
I could put this in my "what if" post. Does an objects size obey the
inverse square law? When is a point of size less than a point? Bert

I am too old to do math anymore...

What I say here could surely be said better...

Actually, (I think) light intensity over distance would be described
as an exponential relationship. Apparent size should be a mathematical
relationship. Double the distance, halve the apparent size. Light
would be quartered versus halved due to being an inverse square
relationship. Of course, if I think of putting a dime one inch from my
eye, and then two inches, it would seem to perhaps be untrue. But I
believe that is the rule as regards apparent size.

Think of a graph with two parameters: size and distance. A line
plotting their relationship would be a straight line declined at 45
degrees. Same graph for light intensity and distance, and you would
see a line that curves like the right half of a 'U' with the higher
part of the line sloping a tad shy from horizontal, more like a kid's
drawing of a mountain slope. I used to do all these kinds of
mathematics when I was younger, now it is fading... some men take
their satisfaction like Aristotle, others as Plato. I am more like
Plato at heart, I will probably never do variable star observations
with meticulous records keeping. I wish to admire beauty with my eye,
to touch with my vision. Plato would observe the beauty of a rose, and
would comment on how it made him feel, the richness of it's colors,
the scent it gives off, how it bobs in the wind... Aristotle would
approach the rose with a ruler, measure it up, and mathematically
describe the relationship of the petals to the origin in the center of
the flower and of the petals to each other. One is oriented to/enjoys
the sensate, another the cerebral. I try to be balanced, but at heart,
I am like Plato. Plato and Aristotle were aquainted, and I once read a
passage where Plato lamented that Aristotle could take everything
beautiful in the world and reduce it to uncharmed dribble with his
overly mechanized mind. He was slightly intolerant... probably a right
brain/left brain dominance situation. Albeit I am a righty...

Tonight, or really this morning, 3 - 4 A.M. Aug. 30th, I just had my
best Mars observations to date. New telescope plus warm hazy humid air
combined to give me a good show tonight. The air is very humid with a
dew point around 74 degrees F. and there is a generalized light cloud
cover dimming the disc to acceptable light levels (only Mars and two
stars overhead are visible). Berman was correct, this is the best
night for seeing Mars. Best views came at 280x, with no significant
'frilling' of the edges of the disc from atmospheric unrest. At 333x
the frilling effect began to show, but not too bad. 400x was a
questionable level to use, and 525x was useless. Unfortunately, by the
time I got around to trying 333x magnification the clouds had thinned
a tad and the disc was becoming too bright for me once again such that
the large dark feature surrounding the polar cap began to wash out. My
best educated guess was that I observed Solis Lacus and the
surrounding areas (Erythraeum and Sirenium) tonight. In about 1 1/2
weeks I should have Syrtis Major right in my sights at this observing
time.

I am now content, I have succeeded in observing Mars in a satisfying
fashion with the disc beyond 25 arcseconds in size. That's it, the
best view of Mars I'll ever see in my whole life. Somebody tell Min he
was correct, Mars did just kick my ass. Tonight was perfect, but now I
know why Ian W. mentioned problems with condensation and the dew...

The only disapointment for me is that for my family members, I do not
get the ohhs and ahhs I see people on CNN having. Whereas I could
clearly see the polar cap and the dark features this evening, they
would look into the scope and see little besides a pale salmon-colored
disc, and become bored within thirty seconds of putting eye to
eyepiece. One person actually took the image out of focus, and asked
me about the dark spot in the center of the disc. I thought, "Wow,
she's good, seeing dark features her first time out..." Actually, no,
that dark spot appears when you severly defocus a planet's image...
I think I am dealing with a group with just poor vision. All wear
glasses, the elders have floaters, and the one who defocused the image
and found it better than a focused image is 'nightblind'.

I really wish I was equipped properly when Comet Hyakutake (sp.?) and
Hale-Bopp went past back in the late 1990s. All I had were 3x30 opera
glasses back then (go ahead and laugh)... that is my greatest
anticipation at the moment: the two naked eye comets coming next
Spring. Jupiter and Saturn will also be great with the new equipment,
but let's face it, this year they will be at their best when it's a
tad chilly out. Am I the only one who goes outside in bone chilling
cold until my fingertips are numbed? Well, Jupiter should linger a
while high up in the sky into the early spring.

Hmm, still have to go for Uranus, I suppose it is time to work on M81
and M82, and perhaps the Whirlpool Galaxy (M51?). First two I am
confident I'll find with ease. M51, I am not so sure in my lightened
skies...

- Livingston


On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:58:01 -0400 (EDT),
(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:

Livingston. You bring up a very interesting point. The intensity of
light diminishes by the square of the distance,and I always thought I
knew size does to. However I'm having problems with my thinking on this.
I could put this in my "what if" post. Does an objects size obey the
inverse square law? When is a point of size less than a point? Bert

Don't assume that when you look at Mars through a telescope that you're
going to see it like the pictures in magazines & such.
Those pictures have been taken professionally using powerful equipment
utilizing long exposure times.
The very 1st time I looked at a planet through my "humble" telescope i
was disapointed.It didn't look anything like the pictures I had seen.But
after doing some learned research I realized that's the way it's
supposed to look.ONLY by taking photographs with long load times wil
celestial objects look like published pictures.

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 20:36:43 -0400 (EDT),
(Bright Star) wrote:

Don't assume that when you look at Mars through a telescope that you're
going to see it like the pictures in magazines & such.

Don't tell me, you were considering nicknaming me 'Greenhorn'?

- Livingston

Bright Star wrote in article
...
Don't assume that when you look at Mars through a telescope that you're
going to see it like the pictures in magazines & such.
Those pictures have been taken professionally using powerful equipment
utilizing long exposure times.
The very 1st time I looked at a planet through my "humble" telescope i
was disapointed.It didn't look anything like the pictures I had seen.But
after doing some learned research I realized that's the way it's
supposed to look.ONLY by taking photographs with long load times wil
celestial objects look like published pictures.

There are rumors that these "published pictures" are manipulated (digitally
enhanced, discolored, etc.) too. So that could be another reason.

--
Angels exist - and this artist has seen them!
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/default.htm